No one actually wants a dialogue on race, least of all the people who keep saying "we need to have a dialogue on race." Does anyone think that a person who believes cries of racism are overblown really wants to hear from some SJW who thinks racism is everywhere? Or that the SJW who thinks racism is rooted in every part of our society really wants to listen to what a person who thinks such claims are exaggerated has to say on the issue?

If just once I could hear someone say "you know, I disagree with your thoughts on racism but you make some valid points and I may have to consider that in my own worldview" then maybe this "conversation" would have something to it. But right now, everyone saying they want a "dialogue" really means they just want to lecture others and get them to let go of their wrongheaded beliefs.

So maybe instead everyone can just shut up about it for a while and move on to something else. This years-long screaming match has accomplished nothing.

As for Starbucks, I get their branding strategy, but this was a stupid move--leftists have been particularly damning in their criticism of this initiative (not to mention, their customer base has a lot of conservatives and moderates to consider). They would have done far more by donating to some (ideally inoffensive) cause related to this issue.

A better strategy would be a random "pay it forward" gimmick, offering a free coffee drink to every Nth customer, with no obligation but a suggestion that the customer do some small kindness to someone else in the community (e.g., buy someone else a drink, offer them your seat). It's harmless, makes the company look like it's trying to spread kindness, and also has the "coupon effect" of encouraging more sales as people might gamble that they'd get a free item.

Instead, they suggest busy barristas and customers talk about racism when clearly someone wants their coffee and someone else wants to give it to them and move to the next customer? Only a clueless idiot CEO would come up with this.

We used to drink a lot of Starbucks at home. Save the empty bags for a free small coffee when we went to town. Starbucks stopped that program.

Now there is a sticker on the bags. After a few minutes prying the sticker open, a few more minutes looking for a magnifying glass to read the numbers, more time to log on to their website and enter the numbers, I think they give some credits on your "Starbucks card" if you have one.

Too much trouble.

Now we drink yerba mate in the mornings. Order it through the Amazon portal.

Starbucks is getting a lot of publicity out of this, and if it's true that even bad publicity is good than it's a win for them.

But it's still hard to see a win for Starbucks here as, at a minimum, they are deliberately violating customers' boundaries to push them into doing something they've not volunteered to do. Are they unable to see the difference between a customer choosing to talk about something, and an employee "nudging" an unwilling customer to do so?

Mostly it reminds me of my experience at a checkout where the cashier, after scanning my purchases, held my credit card hostage while delivering a pitch to contribute toward a charity. Perhaps it was a wonderful charity but my response was not particularly charitable ("I prefer to decide for myself when and how to contribute to charity, and refuse to respond to hard-sell pitches"). The experience certainly didn't make me want to return to that store anytime soon.

Which is to say: how big a fool do you have to be to think getting in your customers' faces is good business?

I wish that they would have just gone with #cooperatewiththepolice. That is the most important lesson from the recent deaths of young blacks at the hands of the police and it would be great to promote that message.

"Police shootings involving the deaths of African-Americans and the ensuing racial tensions in Ferguson, Mo., Staten Island and Oakland, Calif., had turned race relations into a national conversation, and he said he wanted the gathering to provide an outlet for discussion."

It's funny how Starbuck omits Dontre Hamilton, who was shot by a Milwaukee police officer after Starbucks employees called the cops three times. They refused to take no for an answer when the first cops that responded to the call told the Starbucks employees that Hamilton wasn't harming anyone.

Must disagree a bit. Leftie CEO Howard Schultz is as arrogant and self righteous as they come, and while lefties like to make and keep their money far more than the next guy I'm sure he believes in his heart he's a front line social warrior first, while never admitting he's a greedy capitalist second.

The politicians, press, and activists do it all the time. Why shouldn't a coffeehouse be able to share the profit?

Perhaps Starbucks should incorporate as a non-profit and reclassify its coffee business as a fund raising arm. They can claim that they are helping second and third-world farmers with a fair trade agreement for distribution of their beans, which would also qualify as a discussion of race, gender, or whatever is necessary to gain establishment approval.

The first rule of the civil rights racket is that you are granted civil rights. Starbucks should have filed for permission to join their exclusive family. The membership process is highly selective and over one million are excluded annually.

Brando said...No one actually wants a dialogue on race, least of all the people who keep saying "we need to have a dialogue on race." Does anyone think that a person who believes cries of racism are overblown really wants to hear from some SJW who thinks racism is everywhere? Or that the SJW who thinks racism is rooted in every part of our society really wants to listen to what a person who thinks such claims are exaggerated has to say on the issue?

If just once I could hear someone say "you know, I disagree with your thoughts on racism but you make some valid points and I may have to consider that in my own worldview" then maybe this "conversation" would have something to it. But right now, everyone saying they want a "dialogue" really means they just want to lecture others and get them to let go of their wrongheaded beliefs.

It's the same thing with those mandatory sensitivity classes that some colleges are implementing. They want to create their own form of reeducation camps where people are forced to confess their sins against the Narrative and the state. Based on the judgment of the reeducators, the people get a (proverbial or literal) bullet to the brain or are simply forced into servitude. It's straight out of the Little Red Book.

Maybe the campaign is not aimed at the customers but at the baristas. They're not like those burger flippers at McDonald's. They don't just prepare and serve coffee. They effect social change and make America a better place........Is this a bid to put Starbucks at the top of the status order for service employees and thereby attract a better staff?

Doesn't this sort of invite the very behavior among baristas that would inevitably lead to a hostile workplace (based on race) claim in the EEOC? "Encouraging" your employees to get into these discussions with customers (as well as each other) is just an employment law minefield.

Did Schultz consult with any humans before announcing this brilliant plan?

If anything it's probsbly an attempt to get more black people to shop at Starbucks. Look at us, we're down with blacks! We want to talk about racism! White privilege? Please buy our coffee!What would help more would be if they priced their coffee to people other than yuppies.